AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), sexual exploitation of a minor, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM), aggravated battery, and aggravated assault. The charges stemmed from allegations that the Defendant requested and received pornographic videotapes from his biological daughter, C.K., and incidents involving physical assault and sexual abuse against C.K. (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, presided over by Judge Denise Barela Shepherd, with a decision issued on March 18, 2013.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, both CSPM counts, and one count of CDM. Contended that due process and double jeopardy rights were violated due to insufficient evidence regarding the time periods of the offenses as alleged in the amended indictment. Claimed the district court erred in denying a motion to suppress the testimony of the alleged victim and violated confrontation rights by restricting cross-examination scope (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Maintained that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions and that the district court's judgments and decisions were consistent with due process and the Defendant's rights under double jeopardy. Argued that the district court did not err in its decisions regarding the competency of the victim to testify and the restrictions on cross-examination.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, both CSPM counts, and one count of CDM.
• Whether the Defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights were violated due to insufficient evidence regarding the time periods of the offenses as alleged in the amended indictment.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the testimony of the alleged victim.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's confrontation rights by restricting the scope of cross-examination of the alleged victim.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions, the Defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights were not violated, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the victim's testimony, and the district court did not violate the Defendant's confrontation rights (para 38).

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdicts, including testimony and circumstantial evidence related to the time periods of the offenses and the actions of the Defendant. It held that the jury was entitled to resolve factual inconsistencies and that the Defendant's rights under due process and double jeopardy were not infringed upon. The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the competency of the victim to testify and the limitations placed on cross-examination, balancing the Defendant's confrontation rights against the potential prejudice to the truth-finding process (paras 5-37).